N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HELEN E. R

EADER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. B ANK OF AM E R IC A, NA, a Te xa s lim i te d pa rtne rship, suc c e ssor in intere s t to B AC Hom e Loa

ns Se rvic ing LP; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-15205 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-02461-FJM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Fre de ric k J. M artone , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, T A L L M A N , a n d N G UY E N , C i r c u i t J

u d g e s . H e l e n E
. Re a d e r a

p p e a l s p r o s e f

r o m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u d g me nt d i s mi s s i n g h e r a c t i o n a

r i s i n g f r o m f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . W e h a

v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u

n d e r 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1
. W e re vie w de novo. C e rv ante s v . C o untryw i deHomeLoans, Inc
. ,



# FIL ED
JUL 7 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm in pa rt, va c a te in pa

rt, a nd
re m and. The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d R e a de r’ s m otion to re m and be c a use the distric t c o urt ha d dive rsity jurisdic tion a

n d de fe nda

n ts tim e ly re m o ve d. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 1332(a ) (dive rsity jurisdic tion); D e

stfino v . Re isw ig , 630 F.3d 952, 955- 56 (9th C ir. 2011) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd holding tha

t e a c h de fe nda

nt is e ntitle d to thirty

da y s to e xe rc ise his re m ova l rights a fte r be ing se rve d). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d R e a de r’ s c la im s for wrongful fore c losure an d

tortious inte

rfe re nc e with e njoy

m e n t of prope rty , and he r re que st for a d e c la

ra t ory judgm e nt, be c a

use he r a lle gations did not “ p la usibly sugge st a n e ntitle m e nt to re lie f.” Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009); se e also C e rv ante s , 656 F.3d a

t 1043-44 (e xpla ining tha t “ Ariz ona

sta te c ourts ha

v e not y e t
re c o gniz e d a

wrongful fore c losure c a

use of a c tion,” and in sta

t e s tha t do re c ogniz e suc h c l a im s , the y

ty p ic a l ly are ava ila

ble only a fte r fore c losure and a

re pre m ise d on
a lle gations tha

t the borrowe r wa s not in de fa ult). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d R e a de r’ s c la im for “ bre a c h of the de e d of trust c ontra c t” be c a

use doc um e nts re fe rre d to in thec om pla i nt showe d tha

t de fe nda n ts c om plie d with theprovision re quiring notic e prior to a c c e l e ra tion. Se e C hartone , Inc . v . Be rnini , 83 P.3d 1103, 1111 (Ariz . C t. App. 2004) (e l e m e nts of

1 2
- 1 5 2 0 5 2bre a c h of c ontra c t unde r Ariz ona la w); se e also K

nie v e l v . ESPN

, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th C ir. 2005) (c ourt m ay c onside r doc um e nts not phy sic a lly atta c he d to the pla i ntiff’ s ple a ding whose c onte nts a re a lle ge d in the c om

pla int a nd whose
a uthe ntic ity

no pa rty que stions). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d R e a de r’ s quie t titlec la im be c a use R e a de r fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts showing tha t the loa n ha s be e n re pa id. Se e Farre ll v
. W e s t , 114 P.2d 910, 911 (Ariz . 1941) (whe re “ i t a ppe ars the re is a

n unsa tisfie d ba la nc e due to a

de fe nda nt-m ortga ge e , or his a ssigne e , the c ourt will not quie t the title until a

nd unle ss [pla intiff] pa

y s off suc h m o rtga ge lie n ” ). Howe v e r, a fte r the d i stric t c ourt dismisse d R e a de r’ s c la im s for prom issory
e stoppe l, in whic h R e a d e r a lle ge d bre a c h of a prom ise to offe r a pe rm a n e nt loa n
m odific a tion a fte r she m a de tria l pa ym e nts, we he ld tha

t a ba nk m ay be
c ontra c tua lly

obliga te d to offe r a

pe rm ane nt loa

n m odific a tion to a borrowe r who
m a de tria l pa

ym e nts. Se e C

orv e llo v . W

e lls Fargo Bank

, N A , 728 F.3d 878, 883-84 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe r c uriam ). B e c a use the distric t

c o urt did not ha

ve the be ne fit of C orv e llo whe n it issue d its orde r of dism issa l, we va c a te and re m and to a l low the
c ourt to re c onside r R e a de r’ s c la im s for prom issory e s toppe l. W e a lso va c a t e and re m a

nd R e a de r’ s c l a im

for viola tion of Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 33-420 to a l low the c ourt to re c onside r it in light of inte rve ning sta

t e c a se la w.
1 2
- 1 5 2 0 5 3Se e Sitton v . De u t sc he Bank

N at’l Trust C

o. , 311 P.3d 237, 240-41 (Ariz
. C t. App. 2013) (holding tha

t prope rty owne r ha d sta

nding unde r Ariz
. R e v. Stat . § 33-420
and tha t the a lle g e dly fa l se doc um e nts fe ll within the sta tute ’ s sc ope ); Stauffe r v . U.S. Bank N at’l Ass’n , 308 P.3d 1173, 1176-77, 1179 (Ariz . C t. App. 2013) (sam e ). Fina lly , we va c a te and re m and R e a de r’ s c la im for an injunc tion a ga inst the truste e ’ s sa le unde r Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 33-811(C ) in light of our de c ision to re m and
som e of he r othe r c la i m s. Se e Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 33-811(C ) (de fe n se s and obje c tions to a

truste e ’ s sa le are wa ive d if the y are not ra ise d in a

n a c tion re sulting in injunc tive re lie f be fore the sa le ). R e a de r’ s m o tion to file

an ove rsiz e d e xhibit, file d on August 30, 2012, is de nie d. De fe nda nts’ re que st to strike

the portion of Re a de r’ s ope ning brie f inse rting
a lle ge d im a ge s from

a hom e loa n he lp we bsite , se t forth in the ir a nswe ring brie f, is gran te d. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

1 2
- 1 5 2 0 5 4